Universal Indult

  • Thread starter Thread starter TLM_Altar_Boy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Otherwise Eastern Orthodox would be heretics and their Holy Communion would be invalid.
Saint Augustine tells us that all schism is heretical to some degree, since there’s always at least an implicit denial of the God-given authority of a Pope or bishop to legislate on one or another matter of custom.

That having been said, the validity of Orthodox sacraments has nothing whatsoever to do with heresy. Heretics can confer valid sacraments, even a valid Eucharist. The Orthodox have valid sacraments because they have preserved the proper mater/form of the sacrament of Orders (Anglicans lacked the proper intention to ordain to a sacrifical priesthood), as well as the six other sacraments.

If validity depended on theological ortodoxy, there’d be a terrible number of invalid Masses in the Catholic Church today! :eek:
 
Dr. Colossus:
I myself do usually refer to SSPXers as schismatics. But it’s not hard to see the parallels between their way of thinking and protestantism. I still think it’s just a matter of degree.
I have to say, Iohannes, I agree with Dr. Colossus on this. Perhaps, though, we could agree that they are protestant but not Protestant? Basically, here’s my view of the situation:

Through their actions, they deny the authority of the bishop of Rome. The only reason I would not compare the SSPX to the Eastern Orthodox is that the Orthodox admit to denying papal supremacy and thus are honest about their beliefs, whereas the SSPX call him their pope during the Canon of the Mass ("…una cum famulo tuo Papa nostro Joannes Paulo…") but then go and flaunt his decrees. I stand by my opinion that the mindset of the Society, like the original Protestants, is one of disobeying the Magisterium and the Supreme Pontiff.
 
Whatever you want to call the SSPX, let just pray that the schism heals.
 
40.png
Iohannes:
Whatever you want to call the SSPX, let just pray that the schism heals.
This truly is the crux of the matter. Let us pray both that the schism will be healed and that God will show mercy upon the souls of those who die in schism.
 
There is no doubt that SSPX is in totality excommunicated from the Church including the laity that have “formal adherence” to this schism. Ecclesia Dei makes that very clear.
How about those members of SSPX who were never members of regularized Catholic parishes ? If they weren’t in regular communion with the non-sspx, can they really be considered ‘excommunicated’ if they were never communicated?
 
40.png
Fullsizesedan:
How about those members of SSPX who were never members of regularized Catholic parishes ? If they weren’t in regular communion with the non-sspx, can they really be considered ‘excommunicated’ if they were never communicated?
I searched the Canon Law, but it didn’t mention anything that I thought applied to this. My initial thoughts, however, are along the same lines as yours.

If we look at the word “ex-commun-icate” itself, it means “to put outside communion [with the Church]”. I would think that someone who has always been in the SSPX has, by definition, always been outside the Church and thus is not under the authority of the Bishop of Rome. It would seem to me that they cannot be excommunicated any more than a lifelong Protestant can. However, they would still be culpable of grave (though not necissarily mortal) sin for adhering to schism.

I’m not an expert on Canon Law by any means, though, so feel to correct me if I’m wrong.
 
TLM Altar Boy said:
There has been much talk about the possibility of a universal indult to celebrate the Mass according to the rubrics of 1962 (often called the Tridentine Mass). It seems to me that there would be many advantages to such an indult.
A “universal indult” is not necessary for the simple reason that a universal indult already exists by virtue of the papal Bull Quo Primum:

“Furthermore, by these presents [this law], in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used. Nor are superiors, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious, of whatever title designated, obliged to celebrate the Mass otherwise than as enjoined by Us. We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal, and that this present document cannot be revoked or modified”

That particlular legislation has never been revoked by any authority of the Church. It has been admitted by Vatican officials that Pius V’s legislation was never abrogated by Paul VI during or after the promulgation of the new Mass rite in 1969. One of the demands of the priests of the Society of St. Pius X is simply that Vatican officials publically admit this fact of law and to stop putting censures on priests who utilize this gift of Holy Mother Church.

In JMJ +

Matthew
 
I have had truly sacred experiences at both types of Masses.

Alhtough there are benefits in both lines of thinking, it is much easier for personal interpretation and abuse to creep into the Novus Ordo. I have heard of cases where people are no longer even allowed to kneel during the Mass anymore. To me, it is this type of thing that makes the clerics performing this way worse than even the schismactics who at least do not want to open the TLM rite up to interpretation.

Also, I am always perturbed at the way some folks enter the church like they are walking into a gymnasium. I have never seen this happen at the TLM though. I truly believe that there is something about the TLM that brings out more respect in general. Remember, I said “in general”. I know this is not the case for everyone.

Finally,I must admit as well, it is much easier to enter into a prolonged prayerful state in the TLM. I try to go to the TLM as often as possible (it is said weekly but at a bad time here). This is much better for me and I wish it were easier to get to each week.
 
A “universal indult” is not necessary for the simple reason that a universal indult already exists by virtue of the papal Bull Quo Primum:
Oh, Lord, this again! Please see my notes/quotes in Post #29.
That particlular legislation has never been revoked by any authority of the Church.
From the same link provided above:
The next move by the ‘Latin Mass Associations’ was to ‘prove’ that, even if theoretically the Bull Quo Primum * could be set aside by a future Pope, that this was nevertheless not done by the Bull Missale Romanum * of Pope Paul VI. Either - some claim - because Pope Paul VI had no intention of abrogating Quo Primum or - others claim - his Bull *Missale Romanum * is null and void. And so - they all claim - *Quo Primum * still stands and must be adhered to.
As a back-stop for their first argument it is even weaker and more fallacious than their first one. That the Holy Father intended to replace the previously existing Liturgy, there can be no doubt whatsoever. His very words (AAS, vol. 61, 1969, p. 217-222) could not be clearer:
We intend that the Statutes and Prescriptions which We have established shall remain firm and efficacious, both in the present and in the future, notwithstanding those Constitutions and Apostolic Ordinances of our Predecessors, including those which require special mention before they could be derogated.
Canon 22 of the (then) Codex of Canon Law supports the claim that Missale Romanum; has superseded Quo Primum:
A subsequent Law abrogates a previous one, if, made by competent Authority, it re-organises the whole matter of the previous legislation.
The legislation of Pope Paul VI did not do away with the Mass: it merely reorganised the Liturgy.
 
It has been admitted by Vatican officials that Pius V’s legislation was never abrogated by Paul VI during or after the promulgation of the new Mass rite in 1969.
You’re referring to comments made by Alfons Maria Cardinal Stickler. Words which have been taken outside of context by the Lefebvrists in order to justify their schism.

Follow this link, and scroll down to “VII - Addressing the Comments of Cardinal Alfons Stickler.”

I thought I’d spare you guys what would’ve been an otherwise lengthy post. 😃
 
DV,

The commission of 9 cardinals set up by John Paul II to render a judgment on this very matter seems to think otherwise. I guess the “Tridentiners” of the 70’s were right after all. If I have time, I will address your “arguments” and “examples” later on (especially your interpretation of Canon Law). All I can say at this point is: Oh not *that * again :rolleyes:

BTW, do you still troll Steve Ray’s board after having been banned permanently?
 
It is obvious that words will no longer suffice, not even statistics, because those who have an “adult” recollection of the Church, its liturgies, its devotions, its unity prior to the MASSIVE changes in the late 60’s are now in their 60’s or older. That will exclude most priests and many, many bishops. The Churches nationwide had mostly two priests, plus an extra on Sundays. Most Churches anywhere near an average-size city were offering five Masses on Sunday with people crammed into the pews and lining the walls and the back.

These are some old statistics, too depressing for me to attempt to search for new sources: I do not remember what the U.S. population was in 1960-1965, but it was below 150 million in the 1940’s, which means these should be adjusted for the population increases, which make the number even much worse:

U.S. Converts 1960 = 140,000 — 1995 = 75-80,000
Weekly Mass attend 1963 = 71% — 1993 = 22%

of priests 1965 = 57,000 — 1995 = 49,000​

of Brothers 1965 = 12,000 — 1995 = 6,000​

of Nuns 1965 = 180,000 — 1995 = 100,000​

Cath Elem. Schl Stus 1965 = 4,200,000 — 1995 = 1, 8000,000​

Priests Worldwide 44,000 fewer in 1995 per L’Osservatore Romano​

Have seen varying statistics regarding belief in the Real Presence which generally seems to have dropped from 85-95% to below 20%

Many statistics now collected count Catholics going to Mass if they go 5 or 6 time per year.

Apostacy seems to flow out of many episcopates and many, many parishes. A very large percentage of Catholic schools and the clases for converts promotes heresy outright. I have a granddaughter who just finished her junior year in a Catholic College and their REQUIRED textbook in a REQUIRED religion class teaches openly and clearly Marxism and Liberation Theology. They even call it by its true name. Places like Georgetown and Notre Dame and many others should not be allowed to call themselves Catholic.

Unlike some of the posts suggested above, the priests did not choose to read the Epistle, Gospel, and a sermon in the vernacular on Sundays. It was an ABSOLUTE requirement. They were not read in the vernacular on regular weekdays. Excellent Missals were available, both daily (full year and Sundays/Holy Days) and Sundays/Holy Days only which provided Catholics throughout the world the Latin and their native language. They could go to Mass anywhere and follow the Mass, because deviations were not allowed. People of all languages sat beside one another, not separated into 35 groups as in my diocese. Of course, there were and always will be some who break the rules, but pre-1965 the breakage was very minor and most bishops would correct the variations sternly. Even the sermons given were primarily required (subject matter) by instructions from the bishop.

The movements to effect these changes did not start in the 60’s; they were very active in the nineteenth century, but were held in check by popes like Saint Pius X, Leo XIII, and Pius XII. They used regularly their authority and responsibility with the declaration, anathema sit. After that the innovators and modernists were turned loose to give us the chaos we have today.

Prayer to ask God to re-unify the many dissident elements and innovators back into a reasonable assemblance of One is the best and final call, because appeal to the laity is lost on those who have not experienced it (under approx 60 years).

God bless us all and keep us.
 
Cooney:

Excellent post, and for the most part I agree with you. Except on one thing.

First you correctly note:
The movements to effect these changes did not start in the 60’s; they were very active in the nineteenth century,
and then you say:
but were held in check by popes like Saint Pius X, Leo XIII, and Pius XII.
Now, I’m almost finished reading Philip Trower’s Turmoil and Truth: The Historical Roots of the Modern Crisis in the Catholic Church. And I wonder: Were these movements really kept “in check” by these saintly Pontiffs, or were they rather, unbeknownst to them, merely driven underground?

It seems to me that the post-Conciliar dissenters were only making explicit what was alreadt implicit in many of the works of Catholic neo-Modernists.

And if you think of it, which is worse? Heresy that is only implicit can “slip in under the radar,” so to speak. Its danger is more subtle, and less easy to discern than explicit heresy.

You gotta admit, the Church is in a far better scenario today than she was when John Paul II ascended the Papal Throne in 1978. The lines between orthodoxy and heresy are more clearly drawn (by no means perfectly), and there are more outlets for orthodox Catholics to express, share, and propogate their faith and piety.

Of course, thats just my opinion, and you’re certainly free to disagree.

I can’t for the Lefebvrists to get out of schism. With them on our side, we’d be nearly invincible against the Modernists!
 
Although the thread’s moved off this point by now, I’d like to note something: the argument “If everyone goes to the traditional Mass rather than the Novus Ordo Mass, they’re going to miss out on the things the Novus Ordo has to offer” is quite ridiculous.

Isn’t such a case more indicative that the Novus Ordo ISN’T offering these people anything, and that the traditional Masses which draw in scores of young people into the churches IS offering them something? If they thought the Novus Ordo were offering them something better than the traditional Mass, they would go to Novus Ordo Masses, no?
 
I can’t [wait] for the Lefebvrists to get out of schism. With them on our side, we’d be nearly invincible against the Modernists!
When, in the *entire history * of the Church, has the schismatic been right (i.e. holding fast to traditions, orthodoxy and true faith), and those in power or accepted as “in the Church” been wrong or in heresy? Don’t worry, DV, the “Lefebvrists” are doing their part, though marginalized from the “mainstream”, they are part of the few who actually see very clearly what’s happened and simply refuse to compromise on certain points. The war they wage against modernism is far more effective than from any other quarter in the Church, IMO.
 
40.png
Sparky:
I believe the universal indult was offered to SSPX and they turned it down. Strange, since they’d essentially be their own universal diocese and be in union with Rome. I guess they like being divided from the true church. In that sense they’re acting like Protestants.
–Ann
They have fallen into the sin of pride, thinking they are special. Nobody has the right to have a certain Mass. Nobody makes demands of the Church.
 
40.png
DominvsVobiscvm:
Oh, Lord, this again! Please see my notes/quotes in Post #29.

From the same link provided above:
QP is not a universal indult, it was a disciplinary document. The Mass was changed less thasn 40 years after it was issued.
 
40.png
cmom:
They have fallen into the sin of pride, thinking they are special. Nobody has the right to have a certain Mass. Nobody makes demands of the Church.
Jesus Christ certainly makes demands. And the catholic faithful do have a right to have a certain Mass. And it sounds like you ain’t to humble yourself for thinking you can read people’s hearts. Those people are very special, not of themselves, but because God loves them extraordinarily.
 
40.png
Matthew:
Jesus Christ certainly makes demands. And the catholic faithful do have a right to have a certain Mass. And it sounds like you ain’t to humble yourself for thinking you can read people’s hearts. Those people are very special, not of themselves, but because God loves them extraordinarily.
Wrong. As Cardinal Arinze pointed out nobody has the right to demand a certain Mass.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top